Hank Reinhardt's The Book of the Sword (29 page)

The name "claymore" comes from the Gaelic,
claidheamh-mor
, and means "great sword." This has caused some confusion, as the term "claymore" is also used for the classic Scottish basket hilted sword. Sir Guy Laking, with no knowledge of Gaelic, proceeded to call the basket hilt "claybeg," meaning "little sword."

Claude Blair did an excellent article on this in the book
Scottish Weapons and Fortifications
. He showed that both weapons were referred to as "claymores" by the Scots themselves. Since it is a Scottish sword, and it is their language, I will abide by it. However, I will try to make it clear when I use the word "claymore" to which sword I am referring.

There were two varieties of two-hand claymores. One is the lowland variety, which is actually nothing but the standard two-hand sword: long blade, long grip and long straight crossguard, often with ring guards as well. But the classical Highland claymore is quite distinct. It has down sloping guards that end in quatrefoils. This seems to be typical of the Highlands, as older one-hand swords also have the down sloping guard.

A note of warning about the large claymore. This sword was romanticized in the 19th century. As a result, as with other two-handed swords, there were a large number of Victorian copies made. Now that over a hundred years have passed, it is difficult to tell which are actual originals and which are Victorian copies. I doubt if there are more than two dozen originals still in existence, but there are large numbers of copies.

It is easy to believe that these swords also had specialized uses and even "secret" techniques, but such was not the case. When used in single combat, they were used much the same way as the hand-and-a-half, or the "long" sword of the period. Often the blade was grasped and used to parry, sometimes to shorten for a strong thrust, or as is shown in the some of the old manuals, to actually strike with the pommel. The actual utility of that move I doubt rather strongly.

These regular size two-handers were lighter and could be moved with a lot of speed. They were also quite intimidating. Even a knight in full plate, when faced with a whistling sword that weighed between 5–7 pounds, knew that he had problems. A sword of that size, swung hard and fast, could deal a deadly blow even to a man in armor. True, it did not have the force of a halberd, but dead is dead, whether cleaved in twain or merely cut halfway through.

Reproduction two-hand claymore. HRC68.

The two-hand claymore is not as impressive a weapon as the Swiss/German two-hand sword. It does not have the wide guards nor the parrying hooks. But it does have that quite distinct crossguard. Generally the guards are bronze or brass, and usually the pommel is a steel sphere. However, there were other metals and pommel shapes used. One thing always present is the distinct guard.

The origin of this guard is not fully known. There are a few Scottish medieval swords with down-sloping guards but none of them end in quatrefoils. All of these swords are single-handed swords.

Blade size varies, but all the others can be classed as two-hand weapons. Some of these are large swords, with blades up to 50 inches, while there are smaller versions with blades of 36 inches. I have heard that many preferred their sword pommel to reach eye level. But personally I think this is a modern idea. Certainly I have never seen it sourced anywhere but in someone's imagination.

Curiously, this is one of two swords that
was
actually carried on the back.

Hollywood is in love with warriors carrying their swords slung across their backs. There is a problem with this. If you have to draw the sword in a hurry, your arms—if you are human—are simply not long enough to draw a sword of any length. (In Ceylon, Sri Lanka, the ayda katti was worn slung on the back. But it has a blade only about 17–18 inches.)

The Scots never worried about this. The sword was in a scabbard, and the scabbard was slipped off of the back, belt and all, the sword drawn—then all hell would break loose. If the Scotsman won, then he had time to look for his scabbard, and if he lost . . . well, he didn't need it anyway.

This is a very effective sword. I have had a chance to play with a really superb copy that I had made several years ago. The blade is 41 inches and the guard is well over 17 inches. A young strong man can move and swing this with terrifying speed. The weapon is not designed for defensive work, but on the offense, it is scary.

Scotland always seemed to be about a hundred years behind the Continent when it came to weaponry. The two-hand claymore is recorded to have been used at Culloden Moor in 1745. It was a fearsome weapon for the Scots—but it just couldn't stand up to a loaded musket.

There was another development of the two-hand sword that really had nothing to do with war, and that was the bearing sword. These are often confused with fighting weapons, and have given rise to the fiction that two-hand swords were very heavy, since these bearing swords can weigh up to 15 pounds!

These are very big swords, with some exceeding 6 feet in length. But these are processional swords, and used only to impress the populace during parades, gatherings, civic investments, and at times to surround a person of high nobility. They were never intended for use, and frequently are not tempered.

There is an easy way to tell if the sword was intended to be used in battle. If you pick it up, and you think that if you were in shape to swing it, it would make a nice weapon, then it was a weapon. But if you pick it up, and wonder about someone so strong he could actually swing this, then it was never intended to be used.

There's another telling clue: if the sword was inscribed, and the inscription can only be read if the blade is held point up, then it is a bearing sword.

There is another two-hand sword used a great deal in Europe, and it has a less than savory reputation. That was the executioner's sword. This sword had a blade of roughly 30 inches in length, and was wide, usually about 2-1/2 inches. The blades were flat, or a flattened oval in cross section, and never had fullers. The blade was never made with a point, instead it was cut straight across and often three holes were drilled close to the end, so that the sword could never be made into a fighting weapon. These swords are frequently engraved with gallows and wheels, and words like "justice" and "mercy." This method of execution was favored on the Continent, with the condemned having to kneel upright and hold his head up. Anne Boleyn requested a headsman from Europe when Henry VIII had her executed.

On that cheerful note we will leave the European Sector and go East.

Blair, Claude,
Scottish Weapons and Fortifications 1100–1800.
John Donald Publishers Ltd., Edinburgh, 1981.

Blair, Claude,
European Armour circa 1066–circa 1700
. B.T. Batsford, Ltd., London, 1958.

Ffoulkes, Charles J.,
Inventory and Survey of the Armouries of the Tower of London
,
Vol. I
. His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1916.

The sword that we call the katana was the primary sword of the Japanese warrior from roughly the 11th century on into the 20th century. Although the firearm was the principal weapon in modern times, many Japanese officers led charges with the katana during the Second World War.

Japanese officer's saber from World War II, 35 inches overall length. HRC323.

Prior to the 11th century the sword in use seems to have been a straight, single-edged blade with a curious down dropping pommel. Even as far back as this the sword seems to have been quite important to the Japanese. But little is known about this weapon, and we are more concerned with the katana.

The katana seems to have been developed sometime in what is known as the late Heian Period, which is usually listed as 1100–1230 AD. The early Heian Period, 794–1099 AD, obviously saw the beginnings of the katana, but exact information is not known. As you will find stated throughout this book, do not take these dates as hard and fast. These are merely reference points. I can assure you that at the end of 1099 AD (or whatever date the Japanese used), warriors did not say, "Okay, that's it. Throw away these boring old swords and take up these new ones."

The katana is a beautiful weapon, single-edged, two-handed, with a gently curving blade, and a point that is most distinctive. Instead of tapering to a point, the katana curves abruptly to its point. This curve is just as sharp as the body of the sword. This produces a point that is excellent for cutting, with no drag on the point at all, and yet, because of its sharpness, one that will penetrate in a thrust as well as a much more pointed weapon.

Reproduction katana. HRC105.

The Japanese sword—no,
all
Japanese weapons—are interesting and quite attractive. The Japanese sword alone has spawned many books, and one can devote a lifetime to its study and not know all there is to know. (Of course, that is true of weapons in general.) But to study the Japanese sword, you need a very good memory. The Japanese are fanatics about detail, and they have a name for every thing you can think of. Even the most minute detail of decoration will have its own name. This does have one advantage: a katana can be perfectly described and visualized by a person without ever having seen it. I have deliberately refrained from using the Japanese terms in this book. There are too many, and I don't feel the reader should have to have a translator to figure out what I am talking about. If the early Japanese had had beer bottles, and one had ever been broken and used in a brawl, they would then immediately decide on the technique for breaking the bottle, and how to get the properly jagged edge. And they would have had names for the different kinds of edges, strikes, and all of it.

The Japanese sword is one of the most studied in history. It is probably the most renowned, and certainly it is the most hyped. The tales told about the sword are many and varied, but all emphasize the incredible sharpness and power of the blade. And most are utter nonsense. The one that I have encountered the most often is that during WWII a Japanese officer cut a machine gun barrel in half with his sword. I was even consulted on an episode of the TV show
Mythbusters
about this. (I've often pointed out that it would have made more sense to cut down the gunner rather than the barrel, but that wouldn't have been as impressive). Several cousins of a person someone met, or some distant relative who also had it from a friend witnessed this incredible feat. It occurred on Guadalcanal, Bougainville, Iwo Jima or someplace in China.

But it just isn't true. The human body simply can't generate enough speed and force to slice through tough tempered steel. If you can generate enough speed, you can drive a straw through a telephone pole, but a straw is still a straw. Like the legend of the Saracen scimitar cutting through a floating silk handkerchief, it's really impressive, but it isn't true. You cannot generate enough force to cut through a machine gun barrel, nor can you get a blade sharp enough to slice through floating silk.